Comcast Files New Pole Complaint Against Virginia Utility
The cable company and the Appalachian Power Company have been unable to resolve a dispute over pole replacement costs
WASHINGTON, July 7, 2026 – Comcast is again asking federal regulators to intervene in a longrunning dispute over pole attachments in Virginia.
The Federal Communications Commission ruled in February that the Appalachian Power Company (APCo) couldn’t charge the cable giant the full replacement cost of poles that already weren’t up to code before Comcast sought to attach extra equipment.
But the companies still haven’t come to an agreement. Comcast complained in May that APCo was charging a blanket minimum fee of 20 percent of a pole’s replacement cost, which it said defeated the purpose of the February FCC order.
The agency had said costs charged to attachers could only be tied to the incremental extra cost of a stronger pole to support their gear.
On Tuesday Comcast filed a lengthy new complaint at the FCC over the issue, plus a separate legal memo.
“Enough is enough: The Bureau should take prompt and decisive action to declare APCO’s pole attachment charges unlawful, direct APCO to follow the 2026 Order and Commission rules, and order refunds for the overcharges imposed on Comcast to date,” Comcast attorney Matthew Brill wrote.
Comcast’s filing was also signed by Geoffrey Starks, the former Democratic FCC commissioner who retired in June 2025. Both Brill and Starks work for the law firm Latham & Watkins.
An APCo spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In May, the company told Broadband Breakfast that a pole replacement could cost on average $8,000, which it said made the $100 Comcast was offering unfairly low.
In a May 27 email included as an exhibit in the complaint, APCo told the FCC it on average needed a 10 percent longer pole and 13 percent more loading capacity (the physical strength of the pole) to accommodate new attachers.
That combined total was rounded down to 20 percent “in favor of the new attacher,” according to APCo. Based on the $8,000 average pole replacement cost, APCo was typically seeking at least $1,600 per replaced pole.
The company said Comcast’s proposed $100 corresponded only to acquiring a larger bare pole, and APCo’s proposal applied the methodology to the actual installation cost of a new pole.
According to Comcast’s complaint, APCo director David Robinson told the cable company in another email that “if Comcast later contends in an FCC or court proceeding that 20% is too much, we will be contending that 20% is not enough.”
Comcast argued in its complaint that installing a new pole wasn’t more expensive if the pole was larger, and thus its payments should be capped at $200, the most it said would be necessary for procuring a bigger pole. APCo referred to the company’s previous $100 proposal in its FCC email as “next to nothing.”
NCTA, which represents the cable industry, the Virginia Broadband Association, and the West Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association put out statements Tuesday in support of Comcast.
“We support the FCC’s clear, fair cost-sharing standard established last February,” Mark Polen, executive director of WVCTA, said in a statement. “We believe Comcast’s latest complaint and its speedy resolution is an important step toward reaffirming that standard as binding precedent nationwide and helping to expand economic opportunity for more Americans.”
The February order was the first major dispute resolution handled by the FCC’s rapid broadband assessment team (RBAT), which the agency stood up in 2023 in an effort to prevent disputes like this one from holding up broadband deployments.
Comcast won $126 million in funding under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program in Virginia — the program RBAT was designed to bolster — and told the FCC that those projects were imperiled without a swift resolution. The company paid the 20 percent fees under protest in some cases, and wants them recovered.
“The urgency is underscored by Comcast’s willingness to pay under protest amounts it believes are plainly unlawful, solely to avoid missing deployment milestones that serve unserved and underserved communities in Virginia,” the company wrote.
